I have no problem with this text going into Section 1.0 in some form. Thanks, --David
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mohan Parthasarathy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:31 PM > To: Pekka Savola; Black, David > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review > ofdraft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-04.txt > > Pekka, > > If you include this in section 1.0 (where the phrase > "interface" is clarified), then the text > needs modification. In that case, we can keep it more > general and simple by adding > reference to RFC 2863. > > -mohan > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:22:12 PM > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-04.txt > > Hi, > > Does anyone else have preference on this? > > To me, it seems that if more (general) information is added > on interfaces, > it should probably go near the last (added) paragraph in > Section 1. That > said, at least to me (personally) the proposed text below seems too > lengthy and too detailed for this document. > > I'm also not sure how helpful the text is in the sense that > nodes quite > often have a lot of various virtual and pseudointerfaces > (just for these > kinds of purposes) which are shown in SNMP MIB modules (such > as Interface > MIB) but there is no (easy) way to see them otherwise. > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The -05 version is much better - it's sufficiently improved > to remove > > the Discuss in the draft's current form. Nonetheless, I > suggest that an > > RFC Editor note be used to insert the following text (much of which > > Fred Baker wrote) to explain what "modeled as an interface" means: > > > > An important consideration in determining whether to use > IPsec tunnel > > mode is whether the IPsec tunnel mode SA is modeled as an > interface. > > This notion of interface is logical - any time a system, host or > > router, sends a datagram, it has to account for having > done so using > > the RFC 2863 Interface MIB. To do so, the system derives > ifIndex from > > the route entry (see InetCidrRouteEntry in RFC 4292) that > it uses to > > forward the datagram, or from the IpDefaultRouterEntry described > > in RFC 4293. The management information accessed via the ifIndex > > is "the interface" from a management and configuration perspective. > > > > This text should be inserted immediately following this sentence in > > Section 5: > > > > The IPv6 traffic can be protected using transport or tunnel mode. > > > > This will also entail adding informative references to RFCs 2863, > > 4292 and 4293. This is close to the limit of what I'd be > comfortable > > doing with an RFC Editor Note, but I think this would significantly > > improve the clarity of the "what is an interface?" confusion that > > I stumbled over in the original review. > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:11 AM > >> To: Black, David > >> Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-04.txt > >> > >> Hello David (B.), Brian, > >> > >> A new version of the draft has been submitted. We believe it > >> addresses > >> your comments. Please check it out. This was the only DISCUSS. > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels/ > >> > >> Below are a few notes where it isn't 100% clear whether the > >> desired impact > >> was achieved. > >> > >> - section 5.0 almost in its entirety (most text moved from > >> deleted section 5.2). > >> > >> NOTE: I think section 5 is still a bit unclear of when > >> "interface" refers > >> to "IP interface" and when "tunnel interface". > >> > >> NOTE: we also now explicitly state that ingress filtering > >> configuration > >> must be applied manually [it cannot be negotiated as part of > >> IKE or IPsec > >> configuration, for example]. This is likely good enough, > but I think > >> David Black was looking for a bit more than that -- > unfortunately, I > >> don't think any IPsec-side automation can be provided.. > >> > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > >>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > >>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > >>> > >>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > >>> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > >>> > >>> Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-04.txt > >>> Reviewer: David L. Black > >>> Review Date: 9 December 2006 > >>> IESG Telechat date: 14 December 2006 > >>> > >>> Summary: > >>> > >>> This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described > >>> in the review. > >>> > >>> Comments: > >>> > >>> As an informational document whose primary purpose is to > explain how > >>> to use protocols specified elsewhere, clarity is of primary > > importance. > >>> While I was able to figure out what the draft is trying to say, it > >>> needs attention. > >>> > >>> The open issues include the clarity problems in Section 4 > that rise > > to > >>> the level of possible or actual technical misstatements, > the lack of > >>> explanation of requirements in Section 5.2, and the missing IPsec > >>> details. > >>> > >>> My detailed comments are as follows: > >>> > >>> The recommendation against tunnel mode should be included in the > >>> abstract. > >>> > >>> Section 4 has some wording problems: > >>> > >>> 1. [RFC2401] does not allow IP as the next layer protocol in > > traffic > >>> selectors when an IPsec SA is negotiated. [RFC4301] also > > allows > >>> IP as the next layer protocol (like TCP or UDP) in traffic > >>> selectors. > >>> > >>> The "also" is susceptible to misreading. The second > sentence should > >>> be rephrased to: "In contrast, [RFC4301] does allow ..." > >>> > >>> 2. [RFC4301] assumes IKEv2, as some of the new > features cannot be > >>> negotiated using IKEv1. It is valid to negotiate multiple > >>> traffic selectors for a given IPsec SA in > [RFC4301]. This is > >>> possible only with [RFC4306]. If [RFC2409] is used, then > >>> multiple SAs need to be set up for each traffic selector. > >>> > >>> The last sentence is incorrect as written ("set up" needs to be > >>> replaces by "set up, one for each" to correct it) and the use of > >>> RFC numbers for protocol names is semi-opaque. The > following would > >>> be much clearer: > >>> > >>> 2. [RFC4301] assumes IKEv2, as some of the new > features cannot be > >>> negotiated using IKEv1. It is valid to negotiate multiple > >>> traffic selectors for a given IPsec SA in > [RFC4301]. This is > >>> possible only with IKEv2. If IKEv1 is used as specified in > >>> [RFC2409], then each traffic selector requires a > separate SA. > >>> > >>> I strongly recommend use of the protocol names instead of just RFC > >>> numbers for clarity throughout the draft, and using both (e.g., > >>> "IKEv1 [RFC2409]") is an acceptable alternative. > >>> > >>> Table 1 in Section 5 uses acronyms for addresses in the "Contains" > >>> column that need to be defined before they are used. > >>> > >>> Section 5.2 discusses the consequences of whether the endpoint > >>> of an IPsec tunnel-mode SA is modeled as an IPv6 interface or > >>> not. It should say that there is always an IPv6 interface at > >>> the endpoint of a IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel, and the discussion of > >>> whether to model the SA as an interface is concerned with > >>> whether the functionality of an IPv6 interface is realized by > >>> the IPsec SA or outside of it. > >>> > >>> It should also be stated that all uses of the word "interface" > >>> refer to an IPv6 interface, and that the phrase "tunnel interface" > >>> refers to an IPv6 interface at the endpoint of an IPv6-in-IPv4 > >>> tunnel, independent of whether the tunnel is realized by IPsec > >>> tunnel mode. The end of Section 1 would be a good place to > >>> do this. The use of the phrase "IP interface" in Section A.1 > >>> is considerably clearer than the use of "interface" without "IP" > >>> in Section 5.2 - using "IP interface" throughout Section 5.2 > >>> (and for that matter the entire draft) would improve readability. > >>> > >>> The three requirements in Section 5.2 are generally applicable, > >>> and should not be buried in Section 5.2's discussion of IPsec > >>> tunnel mode. The requirements also lack explanations of why > >>> they are requirements. At a minimum, the statement of the > >>> requirements should be moved into Section 5 (before 5.1), but > >>> I would suggest moving them to the end of Section 3 and adding > >>> a discussion of why these requirements are important (e.g., what > >>> goes wrong if they're not met) with reference to the scenarios > >>> described in Section 3. > >>> > >>> Cross-checking this draft against the elements in Section 8 > >>> of draft-bellovin-useipsec-05.txt, I find some things that need > >>> attention: > >>> a) Selectors - Yes, specified in Section 5.1 > >>> b) IPsec protocol and mode - Yes, ESP vs. AH is at the > >>> end of section 4 and tunnel-vs-transport is a > >>> major portion of this draft. > >>> c) Key management - Almost. The numerous mentions of > >>> IKE indicate a preference for automatic keying, but > >>> there should also be a strong recommendation against > >>> manual keying, due to the amount of IPv6 traffic that > >>> may use an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel. Manual keying of > >>> IKE needs to be clearly distinguished from manual > >>> configuration of the IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel. The end > >>> of Section 2 would be a good location for these topics. > >>> d) SPD entries - Yes, specified in Section 5.1 > >>> e) Identification forms - Yes, but. The first bullet in > >>> Section 5.3 has a weak recommendation for IPv4 > >>> addresses as identities. The "but" is that ingress > >>> filtering is discussed entirely in the abstract, and > >>> additional discussion is needed about how to determine > >>> what IPv6 ingress filter to use with which IPv4 address > >>> (this may be part of tunnel configuration). > >>> f) Authentication form - Yes, second bullet in section 5.3 > >>> g) IKE versions and modes - No. Section 4 implies that > >>> both IKEv1 and IKEv2 can be used, although IKEv2 is > >>> somewhat preferred - this should probably be stated > >>> explicitly. There is no discussion of IKEv1 Main vs. > >>> Aggressive mode - it would suffice to say that if > >>> IPv4 addresses are used as identities, identity > >>> protection is not required (it's obvious where the > >>> traffic is coming from), making Aggressive mode an > >>> acceptable alternative to Main mode. > >>> h) IPsec support availability - No. This can be side- > >>> stepped to some extent by noting that the IPv6 RFCs > >>> require IPsec support. > >>> > >>> Note that I am not asking that this draft meet all the > requirements > >>> in Section 8 of the bellovin-useipsec draft, and in > particular, I'm > >>> giving this draft significant slack against the usual IETF > >>> requirement that sufficient mandatory-to-implement elements be > >>> specified for interoperability. With the possible exception of > >>> IKEv1 vs. IKEv2, interoperability requirements belong in the RFCs > >>> that specify the protocols involved. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> --David > >>> ---------------------------------------------------- > >>> David L. Black, Senior Technologist > >>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > >>> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > >>> ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
